Ductal carcinoma in situ with spindle cells: a potential diagnostic pitfall in the evaluation of breast lesions

Pitfalls in breast pathology

Accurate pathological diagnosis is the cornerstone of optimal clinical management for patients with breast disease. As non-operative diagnosis has now become the standard of care, histopathologists encounter the daily challenge of making definitive diagnoses on limited breast core needle biopsy (CNB) material. CNB samples are carefully evaluated using microscopic examination of haematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-stained slides and supportive immunohistochemistry (IHC), providing the necessary information to inform the next steps in the patient care pathway. Some entities may be difficult to distinguish on small tissue samples, and if there is uncertainty a diagnostic excision biopsy should be recommended. This review discusses (1) benign breast lesions that may mimic malignancy, (2) malignant conditions that may be misinterpreted as benign, (3) malignant conditions that may be incorrectly diagnosed as primary breast carcinoma, and (4) some IHC pitfalls. The aim of the review is to raise awareness of potential pitfalls in the interpretation of breast lesions that may lead to underdiagnosis, overdiagnosis, or incorrect classification of malignancy with potential adverse outcomes for individual patients.

Fine needle aspiration of spindle cell ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: A case report and the use of ancillary tests for the differential diagnosis of metaplastic carcinoma

Spindle cell ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a recently recognized subtype of DCIS, which is associated with a very rare and unique morphology. Although the histologic features have been relatively well described in a few reports, the cytologic features have not. Even though the distinction of this lesion from usual DCIS is not crucial clinically, it should be noted that this lesion might simulate the features of metaplastic carcinoma on fine needle aspiration cytology. Here, we report a case of spindle cell DCIS in a 45-year-old female, with the detailed cytologic features, both on conventional and liquid-based preparations, along with some useful immunohistochemical staining markers for the differential diagnosis.

Papillary Lesions of the Breast: An Update

CONTEXT

-Papillary lesions of the breast, characterized by the presence of arborescent fibrovascular cores that support epithelial proliferation, constitute a heterogeneous group of neoplasms with overlapping clinical manifestation and histomorphologic features, but may have divergent biological behavior. These lesions are exclusively intraductal neoplasms, although an invasive carcinoma may rarely have a predominantly papillary architecture. Although recognition of a papillary architecture is typically not challenging, the histologic distinction of these entities is not always straightforward. Historically, different terminologies and variable criteria have been proposed for a given entity by various authorities. The difficulty in classifying these lesions has been further confounded by the scarcity of data and the heterogeneity across different studies with regard to the molecular genetic characteristics of this group of lesions.

OBJECTIVE

-To provide an overview focusing on the current concepts in the diagnosis and classification of papillary lesions of the breast incorporating recent molecular genetic advances.

DATA SOURCES

-Data were obtained from pertinent peer-reviewed English-language literature.

CONCLUSIONS

-The recent evolution of molecular techniques has enhanced our knowledge of the pathogenesis of papillary carcinomas of the breast. This, along with emerging outcome studies, has led to prognosis-based reclassification of some of these entities. Additional studies focusing on the molecular signatures are needed to identify potential decision tools to further stratify these lesions with respect to prognostic significance.

Papillary and neuroendocrine breast lesions: the WHO stance

In this review, we highlight adaptations in the WHO 2012 classification of papillary and neuroendocrine breast lesions as compared with the previous 2003 version. Consensus criteria for distinguishing atypical ductal hyperplasia from ductal carcinoma in situ within an intraductal papilloma are proposed. The absence of myoepithelial cells around the wall of an encapsulated papillary carcinoma, although raising consideration of an indolent tumour with minimal invasion, is currently regarded as in-situ disease for staging purposes. The majority of solid papillary carcinomas are classified as in-situ tumours, but lesions with irregular tumour islands within desmoplastic stroma may be considered to be invasive. The diagnosis of solid papillary carcinoma without further qualification as either in-situ or invasive disease is discouraged. When invasive papillary carcinoma is seen in the breast, metastatic papillary carcinoma from other organ sites needs to be excluded. WHO 2012 classifies neuroendocrine breast tumours as well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumour, small-cell carcinoma, and invasive breast carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation. There is currently no clinical impact of identifying neuroendocrine differentiation in conventional invasive breast carcinomas, apart from acknowledging its frequent occurrence in subtypes such as the hypercellular variant of mucinous carcinoma and solid papillary carcinoma.

The role of immunohistochemistry in the differential diagnosis of papillary lesions of the breast

Papillary lesions of the breast represent a heterogeneous group with differing biological behaviour. Correct diagnosis is crucial but may be difficult, as many benign and malignant papillary lesions have similar appearances. Immunohistochemistry plays a useful role in their differentiation. Myoepithelial markers can help in differentiating papilloma from papillary carcinoma, as the former usually shows a continuous layer of myoepithelial cells. In intracystic papillary carcinoma, there is controversy as to the presence of a complete myoepithelial cell layer around these lesions. p63 is the marker of choice as the staining is nuclear, cross-reactivity is minimal, and sensitivity is high. Papilloma may frequently be complicated by superimposed different types of epithelial hyperplasia, which range from usual to atypical or even ductal carcinoma in situ, and they many be morphologically similar. Basal cytokeratins (CKs) are useful to differentiate these entities; as usual hyperplasia is positive for basal CKs with a mosaic staining pattern. CK5/6 is probably the best marker. Neuroendocrine markers (chromogranin A and synaptophysin) may be positive in papillary carcinoma, particularly in the solid type, and there may be some overlap with the ductal carcinoma in situ with spindle cells or endocrine ductal carcinoma in situ. A panel of CK5/6, p63 and neuroendocrine markers can be useful in the diagnostic investigation of problematic papillary lesions of the breast. As the experience with these markers remains rather limited, it is too early to recommend basing treatment choices on these marker studies alone. Complete removal of lesion is probably still the treatment of choice.

Spindle cell lesions of the breast--the pathologic differential diagnosis

Spindle cell lesions of the breast represent an interesting diagnostic problem, as the differential diagnoses are wide. Diagnosing this is particularly problematic but important when encountered in a needle core biopsy, as treatments of different entities are different. In the histologic assessment of spindle cell lesions, the simplified approach is to evaluate the spindle cells and the accompanying epithelial cells. In the biphasic lesions with predominance of spindle cells with benign epithelial component, fibroepithelial lesions including fibroadenomas and phyllodes tumors are the most common, followed by pseudoangiomatous stromal hyperplasia, hamartoma and adenomyoepithelioma. For biphasic lesions with predominance of spindle cells with malignant epithelial component, the biphasic metaplastic carcinoma is likely. For monophasic lesions with pure pleomorphic spindle cell only, the monophasic metaplastic carcinoma is more common than the rare primary sarcomas like malignant fibrous histiocytoma, angiosarcoma, and other high grade sarcomas. In monophasic lesions with pure bland spindle cells only, the possible lesions include fibromatosis, fibromatosis like metaplastic carcinoma and other unusual conditions like dermatofibrosarcoma protuberance. By careful searching for the accompanying epithelial element, and with the aid of appropriate clinical input and judicious use of immunohistochemistry, many of these lesions can be confidently diagnosed in the needle core biopsy, thus facilitating appropriate treatments.

New trends of immunohistochemistry for making differential diagnosis of breast lesions

Immunohistochemistry is widely used for pathological diagnosis of breast lesions. Other than hormone receptors and HER2/neu analysis for primary breast carcinomas, several markers may be useful for differential diagnoses, although in limited situations. To decide the malignant potential of intraductal proliferative lesions, analysis for the staining pattern of cytokeratins may be a good reference. Most ductal carcinoma in situ cases are diffusely positive for luminal cell markers (CK8, CK18, CK19), but negative for basal cell markers (CK5/6 and CK14). However, usual ductal hyperplasia may show the mosaic staining patterns for any of these markers, which may indicate a heterogeneous cell population in benign lesions. Myoepithelial markers (alpha-SMA, myosin, calponin, p63, CD10) are almost consistently positive for benign papillomas but they do not completely distinguish intraductal papillary carcinomas. Preservation of myoepithelial layer is the diagnostic key when looking at benign sclerosing lesions, including carcinoma with pseudoinvasive structures. E-cadherin is mostly positive for ductal carcinomas but negative for lobular carcinomas. Some of the lobular carcinomas are positive for 34betaE12, but they are consistently negative for CK5/6. Comparison with histopathological findings of hematoxylin and eosin is essential to make proper diagnosis in the individual case.

Solid papillary ductal carcinoma in situ versus usual ductal hyperplasia in the breast: a potentially difficult distinction resolved by cytokeratin 5/6

The solid papillary variant of ductal carcinoma in situ is an uncommon entity, which usually presents in the seventh or eighth decade and may be associated with invasive mucinous carcinoma. Solid papillary ductal carcinoma in situ (SP-DCIS) shares many morphological features with usual ductal hyperplasia (UDH) involving a papilloma: papillary architecture, solid growth, cellular streaming, and low-grade nuclear features. These similarities can make the distinction between these 2 entities challenging. Recent studies have demonstrated that immunohistochemical staining for cytokeratin 5/6 can distinguish UDH from conventional forms of ductal carcinoma in situ. Most of the epithelial cells of UDH express cytokeratin 5/6, but the tumor cells of ductal carcinoma in situ do not. We tested the hypothesis that the results of staining for cytokeratin 5/6 can distinguish UDH from the solid papillary variant of ductal carcinoma in situ. Immunohistochemical staining of 14 cases of SP-DCIS and 9 cases of UDH (4 involving papillomas) was performed using cytokeratin 5/6 antibody clone D5/16 B4. Strong cytoplasmic or membrane staining was considered positive. The hyperplastic cells in all cases of UDH showed strong staining for cytokeratin 5/6. The percentage of positive cells ranged from 50% to 80%. None of the SP-DCIS tumor cells stained for cytokeratin 5/6; however, many cases did show staining of occasional entrapped, benign epithelial, and myoepithelial cells. We conclude that the absence of strong cytokeratin 5/6 expression by SP-DCIS distinguishes it from its morphological mimic, UDH. Pathologists must guard against misinterpreting SP-DCIS as UDH in those cases in which the carcinoma cells engulf cytokeratin 5/6-expressing residual, native epithelial cells.

Rosai-Dorfman disease of the testis: an unusual entity that mimics testicular malignancy

A 47 year old Chinese man with diabetes mellitus and previously treated pulmonary tuberculosis presented with painless right testicular enlargement of 1 month's duration. He underwent an orchidectomy for presumed testicular neoplasm corroborated clinicoradiologically. Histological examination of the testicular mass revealed an inflammatory lesion comprising lymphocytes, plasma cells and sheets of pale staining histiocytes, some containing lymphocytes within their ample cytoplasm, suggestive of emperipolesis. S100 immunohistochemistry stained the histiocytes, while ultrastructural examination confirmed emperipolesis. A diagnosis of Rosai-Dorfman disease was made, an exceedingly rare testicular lesion. Clinicoradiological findings mimicked a neoplasm, while the inflammatory histological appearances with occasionally discerned multinucleated cells raised the possibility of xanthogranulomatous orchitis. Tuberculous orchitis was excluded through negative Ziehl-Neelsen stains and PCR for mycobacterium, while seminoma, which sometimes features a predominant inflammatory component obscuring neoplastic cells, was excluded by absent immunostaining for placental alkaline phosphatase and CD117.

Cytokeratins in Papillary Lesions of the Breast

We studied 50 papillary lesions (25 papillomas and 25 papillary ductal carcinomas in situ, DCIS) diagnosed at Singapore General Hospital, for immunohistochemical expression of cytokeratin (CK) 5/6, CK14, and 34betaE12. The immunoscore (proportion of stained cells multiplied by staining intensity) was compared between the two groups. Cytokeratin expression was corroborated by confocal microscopy. Results were applied to a separate series of 43 papillary tumors from Hong Kong (HK). CK5/CK6, CK14, and 34betaE12 showed higher immunoscores in papillomas (mean values, 107.6, 186.6, and 113.1, respectively) than papillary DCIS (mean values, 12, 29.6, and 34.5, respectively; P<0.0001, P<0.001, and P<0.02, respectively). A cutoff immunoscore threshold of 50 appeared discriminatory between papilloma and papillary DCIS, and this value was applied to the HK cases, with CK5/CK6, CK14, and 34betaE12 correctly predicting 25 (89.3%), 26 (92.9%), and 27 (96.4%), respectively, of 28 HK lesions labeled as papillomas; while they corroborated 13 (86.7%), 13 (86.7%), and 5 (33.3%), respectively, of 15 HK cases diagnosed as papillary DCIS. Review of discordant cases showed that lesions were small, derived from core biopsies, or disclosed accompanying invasive carcinoma. When both SGH and HK cases were combined as a group, the sensitivity of an immunoscore of 50 or less in the diagnosis of papillary DCIS was 95%, 85%, and 62.5% for CK5/CK6, CK14, and 34betaE12, respectively, while the specificity was 86.8%, 94.3%, and 86.8%, respectively. CK immunohistochemistry can aid in evaluating papillary breast lesions. 34betaE12 does not appear as useful in identifying papillary DCIS.